sluts vs. incels

For women to have a lot of partners, all they have to do is let sex happen. For men to have a lot of partners, they have to reprogram their personalities, read women’s minds, sharpen their social skills, get their professional life in order, and on and on and on and on. Women’s sexual value is guaranteed by default. Men’s is entirely conditional.

Sex positive feminism doesn’t really lead to equality because the average woman enjoys social and sexual value by default that only a tiny minority of extremely privileged men have.

Sex positive feminists seem to imagine that men have sexual freedom because nobody will ever call them a slut, but what they fail to recognize is that the male equivalent of the slut is not the stud, but the involuntary celibate or the socially inept male virgin, the very same that most feminists, sex positive or otherwise, will deride as potential monsters, Elliot Rodger “nice guys,” and “misogynists,” at worst, invisible or barely noticed human props that populate the background of the social landscape at best.

For women to complain about male sexual freedom is like complaining that homeless people are free because they don’t have to work. Obviously freedom presupposes opportunity, and this is something women enjoy but most men do not.

Women that brag about having a lot of sex begin to look a lot less like “liberated” underdogs, if you consider it from this perspective, and begin to look a lot more like french aristocrats bragging about their wealth in front of starving people on the eve of the revolution.

I’m actually a big fan of third wave feminism because they repeatedly reveal the cruelty and stupidity of our social norms regarding gender, not the norms imposed by the imaginary patriarchy, but those which are imposed on men by women. At this rate, I seriously wonder if feminism will survive another generation.

BlueTigress responded:

“Wait, what? How is a man getting no action the same as a woman getting too much action?”

I said:

I thought I already explained it. But ok. Men and women have *opposite* roles in courtship. Therefore they have reciprocal incentives and disincentives.

For a guy to have a lot of sex, it is actually an accomplishment because he is at risk of being sexually invisible. For a woman to have a lot of sex, it is not an accomplishment, because she is always sexually visible, even if she chooses not to be. Do you see how they are inverses of one another? It’s like a mirror image, everything is reversed.

Women begin at the top of the sexual and social hill and have value by default. Their challenge is to avoid sliding down the hill. Men begin at the bottom and have no value by default. Their challenge is to claw their way up the hill.

According to yesterday’s gender norms, the woman who failed socially is the one who slept around a lot and therefore wasn’t suitable for male commitment. The male who failed socially was the one who couldn’t sleep with anybody at all and therefore wasn’t suitable for female sexual commitment. They’re inverses.

The challenge for women was to be more selective, since they can have sex with virtually any man they want even if they can’t secure the male’s commitment; the challenge for men is to be selected by a greater number of women, since he can’t have sex with anyone unless he successfully jumps through whatever hoops women demand he jump through in order to qualify for their intimacy.

This is what meant success for both genders. The opposites of both of these, meaning failure, is a woman who is not selective and a man who is not selected by any women at all. Therefore the male equivalent of the slut is the involuntary celibate, not the stud, and virgin shaming of men is the male equivalent of slut shaming women.